DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
A Reply was filed 9 October 2025. All amendments therein have been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 16-20 are withdrawn. Thus, claims 1-15 are further examined herein.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which an inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-15
The claims contain the term “weakly-ionized” which renders the claims indefinite. This term is not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For example, the dividing boundary between “weakly-ionized” and “non weakly-ionized” is unknown and unclear.
Claim 1
The phrase “the weakly ionized plasma providing a suppression of radiation losses corresponding to bremsstrahlung” (step b) is unclear. For example, it is unclear whether: (1) the suppression is due to the bremsstrahlung; (2) the losses are due to the bremsstrahlung; or something else.
Claim 10
The phrase “the weakly ionized plasma of fusion reactant nuclei . . . providing a suppression of radiation losses corresponding to bremsstrahlung” (step a) is unclear. For example, it is unclear whether: (1) the suppression is due to the bremsstrahlung; (2) the losses are due to the bremsstrahlung; or something else.
Claim 15
The phrase “can include” is unclear. It is unclear whether the claim is required to “include”. Also, since the phrase (as best understood) is not required to have additional features, it is unclear how it further limits claim 10.
Review
The claims do not allow the public to be sufficiently informed of what would constitute infringement. Any claim not specifically addressed is rejected based upon its dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement.
The reasons for rejection set forth in the prior Office Action dated 10 April 2025 are herein incorporated by reference. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. For the many reasons of record, Applicant’s disclosure is deemed non enabling and inoperative.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the disclosed invention is inoperative and therefore lacks utility.
The reasons for rejection set forth in the prior Office Action dated 10 April 2025 are herein incorporated by reference. This application claims an invention that contradicts known scientific principles. An invention that is "inoperative" (i.e., it does not operate to produce the results claimed by Applicant) is not a "useful" invention in the meaning of patent law (MPEP 2107.01).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's remarks mention a newly submitted first article to "An Approach to Nuclear Fusion Utilizing the Dynamics of High-Density Electrons and Neutrals, Part 1," (published January 31, 2025), and a newly submitted second article to "Steady state rotational dynamics of a weakly ionised hydrogen plasma under cross-field configuration" (unpublished commentary dated May 28, 2025). These articles have been considered but they are not persuasive.
The examiner notes that the present application claims priority to 2013. It is impermissible to use a later reference (which shows the state of the art existing after the effective filing date of the application) to determine whether the present application is enabled. In re Koller, 613 F.2d 819, 823 n. 5, 204 USPQ 702, 706 n.5 (CCPA 1980). MPEP 2124.
The examiner further notes that the two articles appear to be by a current inventor or a person associated with the assignee Alpha Ring.
Other arguments by Applicant are directed to:
Firstly . . . Applicant hereby submits a manuscript entitled "Electron Catalyzed Fusion" (Remarks at page 18)
Secondly, accompanying this response Applicant also hereby submits a Declaration of the present inventor, Alfred Y. Wong Ph.D., dated June 13, 2013 (Remarks at page 19)
Thirdly, Applicant hereby presents a paper submitted 29 August 2019 by the present inventor (Remarks at page 19)
Fourthly, submitted herewith is an Article written by the present inventor entitled "Enhancement of Nuclear Fusion in Plasma Oscillation Systems" (Remarks at page 20)
Fifthly, submitted herewith is the article "Observation of Proton-Boron Fusion Products from Rotating Plasma Device" (Remarks at page 20)
Sixthly, Applicant submits herewith the document entitled “Experimental Status of LENR,” and the document entitled, “Briefing on Low-Energy Reactions (LENR) Research” (Remarks at page 21)
Further, Applicant reiterates for the record that the method as claimed does not concern cold fusion (Remarks at page 21).
The examiner notes that with regard to the first through sixth arguments, the mentioned documents are not “submitted herewith”, and thus not addressed herein.
With regard to the last argument, The examiner notes that “cold fusion” has many names. Some names are: low energy nuclear (fusion) reactions (LENR); low temperature nuclear reactions; chemically assisted nuclear reactions (CANR); lattice assisted nuclear reactions (LANR); and lattice enabled nuclear reactions. Other names may be referred to as part of: condensed matter nuclear science (CMNS); and muon-catalyzed fusion at low temperatures. This is not necessarily a complete list of all names. The prior Office Actions explain why the claims fall under the umbrella of “cold fusion”, regardless of what different name Applicant may use.
As discussed in previous Office Action, courts have determined that similar claims of “cold fusion” fail to comply with both the enablement requirement and the utility requirement. The examiner is bound by the court decisions.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Prosecution on the merits is closed. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the mailing date of the advisory action, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from that mailing date. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
RCE Eligibility
Since prosecution is closed, this application is now eligible for a request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114. Filing an RCE helps to ensure entry of an amendment to the claims and/or the specification.
Contact Information
Examiner Daniel Wasil can be reached at (571) 272-4654, on Monday-Thursday from 10:00-4:00 EST. Supervisor Jack Keith (SPE) can be reached at (571) 272-6878.
/DANIEL WASIL/
Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Reg. No. 45,303
/JACK W KEITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646